Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User

New nominations by date

March 5

Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, MN

Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, MN to Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, Minnesota

Speedy rename to expand the postal abbreviation. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I notice that Apple Valley, Minnesota has a population of less than 50,000, which has previously been a standard for deletion. I also notice, however, that this category has 6 users, which distinguishes this category from past cases. I would recommend renaming to Category:Wikipedians in Dakota County, Minnesota to increase the scope of the category to a reasonable size. If no consensus for that, I support renaming per nom. That being said, this should probably be moved to the dated section for further comment. VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• At ca. 45500, it's just slightly below the informal cutoff point. The metro population is listed as nearly 3 million but I doubt that's accurate (I've left a note on the article's talk page), considering that Minnesota has a total population of about 5 million. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Moved to dated section at 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians with approved alternate accounts

Rename Category:Wikipedians with approved alternate accounts to Category:Wikipedians with alternate accounts

The inclusion of "approved" in this category title gives the illusion of some sort of approval process, which does not currently exist. The category description already explains that having an alternate account is ok if in compliance with WP:SOCK. VegaDark (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rename as nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. What use are all these categories? Do we need to know who has alternate accounts? Does it help the project? I do have an alternative account, but see no need for it to be in a category. It is mentioned on my user page. --Bduke (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of Lucasbfr

Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of Lucasbfr - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: As I understand it, this sort of category is not allowed, to prevent millions of unnecessary categories from being created. Xyzzyplugh (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This was clearly intended in all good faith but seems a bit overenthusiastic - this category won't harm the encyclopaedia and probably assists transparency. Orderinchaos 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Can't care less on the fate of this category, since I do know my accounts, but this is created by the {{User Alternate Acc}} template, so i'm pretty sure that this is intended that way. Also note that we create a category when we mark sockpuppets, so I don't think there is a problem in marking legitimate accounts. -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy contested; moved to dated section. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• I have placed the category into Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts. As I see it, we have two options here:
  1. Speedily close this nomination, perhaps in favour of a more general discussion - at UCFD (in the form of a mass nomination) or on some other discussion page - regarding whether {{User Alternate Acc}} should categorise user pages, or
  2. Leave this nomination open so that it can serve as a test case.

  I essentially agree with the nominator's rationale, and only offer the first option in light of the fact that any edit to Template:User Alternate Acc will affect all subcategories of Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Is there a way that listifying such categories (to one big list of all users and their alternate accounts) will work? I don't like the prospect of how many categories this would allow creation of, but the info should exist somewhere. VegaDark (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps Wikipedia:Alternate accounts, Wikipedia:List of alternate accounts of Wikipedians, or some similarly-titled page could work? I would support deletion even in the absence of listification, since I can think of little use for these types of categories. In order for the user page of an account to appear in this type of category, an editor must disclose which alternate accounts he or she has. Once that's done, the user page ties the accounts together and the category provides little added value. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Template:User Alternate Acc is a good idea and better than Template:User Alternate Acct, but it should not put the account into this type of category. They should all be deleted. I suggest closing htis discussion, and opening a new general discussion. Just another case of "Templates good; categories bad". --Bduke (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians interested in police work

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in police work to Category:Wikipedians interested in law enforcement

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article (law enforcement - a disambiguation page) and of WikiProject Law Enforcement. In addition, the scope of "law enforcement" is more defined and more universal than that of "police work", which can vary from country to country. That is, whereas the activity of law enforcement is essentially identical across the globe, the specific duties and powers of police agencies can and do vary significantly (for instance, compare the mandate of police agencies in Iceland or Denmark to those in Colombia and Iraq). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

March 3

Category:Wikipedians by role-playing game and subcategories

Nominating-

• Category:Wikipedians by role-playing game
• Category:Wikipedians who play Advanced Dungeons & Dragons
• Category:Wikipedians who play Big Eyes, Small Mouth
• Category:Wikipedians who play Dungeons & Dragons
• Category:Wikipedians who play GURPS
• Category:Wikipedians who play Shadowrun
• Category:Wikipedians who play World of Darkness games

Users who simply play these games are probably not interested in contributing to the articles on those games. We already have WikiProjects for at least some of these, as well as an over-arching RPG one, so joining that is preferable to using these categories if you do want to contribute. If you wish to just state the fact you play the game(s), a userbox or comment is fine. At minimum the parent category should be depopulated of individual users as too broad for collaborative purposes, and they should be renamed as 'users interested in' to give some collaborative use, though some of the sub-categories are possibly too narrow anyway. In any case, as I've said, such categories would be redundant to our WikiProjects. J Milburn (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. "who play" ≠ "interested in collaborating on". Doesn't help Wikipedia to categorize which users have played particular games or not. Stuff like Dungeons and Dragons is probably a large enough topic to facilitate collaboration, but the current category is not named for that. I'd probably support keeping an "interested in" category for that though. As for the others, it looks like they are too narrow even for an "interested in" category. VegaDark (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment so change all to "interested in", which is presumably the case. Not everyone has adopted the method of working in wikiProjects yet. I dont see why any of these should be too narrow.DGG (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• What reason is there to presume that "play" = "interested in"? There are a whole host of activities that everyone does, but that doesn't mean they have any interest in collaborating on articles about those activities. I'm not insisting that this is the case with the categories involved in this nomination (I haven't yet taken a look at how they're populated), but I think a blanket presumption regarding interest is more likely to lead to miscategorisation than anything else. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep They are fine as they are. Why are all of these type categories being nominated for deletion just because they do not facilitate collaboration. Why are all of the community building categories being deleted. I don't want to have to go to the article, click Special:Whatlinkshere, then choose the User namespace, click OK, and then wait for it to show me every user page that is linked to that article just to find out who might play Dungeons and Dragons. I would rather have a category where I can find all of the other players of the game. Please, leave something that builds the community. - LA @ 19:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to ask a general question: why would you want or need to find out which Wikipedians play D&D or some other game? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: In my experience, nothing "builds the community" as much as successful collaboration on an article. It is actions and communications that build community, not an impersonal, automatically-generated directory of users. Enforcing the principle that Wikipedia is not a directory of gamers or people by some other random personal detail unrelated to the encyclopedia does not undermine community-building. Thus, for me the only question is whether these categories facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, in light of the fact that "who play" does not imply "who are interested in collaborating on articles about" or "who can contribute non-OR encyclopedic content to articles about". Therefore,

• Delete Category:Wikipedians who play Advanced Dungeons & Dragons or merge into the D&D category - excessively limited collaborative scope: does not have a head article, Advanced D&D is just one of several updated versions of D&D
• Delete Category:Wikipedians who play Big Eyes, Small Mouth - limited collaborative scope: single-article category
• Neutral on the rest, pending a response/clarification to my question to LA above.

Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Theist Wikipedians

Category:Theist Wikipedians - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This category has been nominated for deletion three times already, and I do not wish to restart a debate about whether these types of categories are inherently collaborative. However, I think that prior discussions failed to consider several key issues unique to this category, probably because the prior discussions were group nominations of Category:Wikipedians by religion or Category:Wikipedians by philosophy.

This category has a relatively vague scope, and it doesn't give us any especially useful information about the users it contains. It tells us that they believe in the existence of a deity or deities, but doesn't tell us which one(s). The category is also nearly all-inclusive; 80-90% of the world's population holds a belief in the existence of one or more deities. Moreover, this category is redundant to other existing categories, such as the specific subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by religion and Category:Wikipedians interested in theism, and does not make a unique contribution to the encyclopedia.

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per "The category is also nearly all-inclusive; 80-90% of the world's population holds a belief in the existence of one or more deities". VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 00:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I see no problem with this category. I personally believe in God, I don't adhere to any particular religion, and, at least in my country, believing in God is not something "almost everyone does". Stating that one believes in God and not mentioning any religion is a significant religious and philosophical statement in itself that users ought to be allowed to express on par with adherents of various religious and philosophical denominations. __meco (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to limit anyone's self-expression; however, userboxes and user page notices already serve the purpose of self-identification. What reason is there to maintain a directory of Wikipedians who are theists? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, user category does nothing to advance the encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as a meta-category for subcategories. Even user-cats benefit from category trees (and a lot more should fall under this one). bd2412 T 16:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Category:Wikipedians by religion already serves as an even more inclusive parent category. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• By that token, Category:Wikipedians already serves as an even more inclusive parent category. __meco (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Most of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by religion could be placed into Category:Theist Wikipedians, and vice versa. The same is obviously not true of either of those two categories and Category:Wikipedians. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. On this one, I think that several of the assumptions made here are fundamentally wrong, and the demographics of Wikipedia need to be taken into account. While it is true that a sizable majority of people in the Americas, Northern Africa and the Arabian Subcontinent, and those on the Indian subcontinent are theistic, that is not so for much of Europe and Asia (where Atheism and Buddhism, respectively, are widespread). Further, the demographics here tend to skew towards non-theism; groups such as the Brights are severely over-represented in Wikipedia, and parody religions such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn (which are largely unknown outside the insular world of the internet) have a lot of interest here. I'd like to see the category turned into another organizational (parent-only) category, with no editors as direct members, but there should be a distinction between theistic and non-theistic beliefs. Horologium (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep None of our business how WPedians want to characterise their religion. it is perfectly possible that someone may want to characterise himself this way without meaning anything more specific, so I'd keep it a a real category, not just a parent one. DGG (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, just as valid as Category:Christian Wikipedians in my mind. Might seem vague, but you could say the same thing about some people's beliefs. -- Ned Scott 19:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

March 1

Category:Wikipedian random page patrollers

Category:Wikipedian random page patrollers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Unlike similar categories for recent changes and new page patrollers, this category does not facilitate collaboration. There is no special knowledge or expertise that random page patrollers possess that could be useful for someone else. It's just a matter of clicking "Random article" and editing. The userbox is adequate to convey this information; there is no need to maintain a listing of random page patrollers.

• Delete as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This seems more of a trivial fact. I agree, a userbox is enough to convey this message. Youngwebprogrammer (Talk)
• Delete per nom, although I am not necessarily convinced the other two categories mentioned in the nom are particularly useful either. What purpose would one have to seek out a new page patroler or a recent changes patroler? I guess that argument can be saved for another UCFD, however. VegaDark (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• One could perhaps seek out advice regarding effective techniques for new page/recent changes patrolling (e.g. how to spot questionable articles or edits, whether/how to tag an article or revert an edit, what notice/warning to issue). Of course, all of this information could be obtained by posting a question at one of any number of talk pages, so perhaps the categories are not all that useful after all. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Perfectly good way of improving WP, and I think there's no reason to deprecate it. I thik a lot of people actually do this--many more than list themselves here--and perhaps seeing this will encourage others. DGG (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that random page patrol is a good way of improving articles (in fact, I am one of the users in this category), but how does the category affect improvement? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG. Raising awareness for a method and encouraging others is a very good and logical reason for a user category, and certainly does help us build the encyclopedia. -- Ned Scott 19:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Could you please clarify what you mean by "raising awareness"? How does the mere existence of a category raise awareness beyond what is already done by Wikipedia:Random page patrol and the "Random article" link in the standard WP navigation box on the left side of the screen. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Users who push random buttons

Category:Users who push random buttons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a category for people who are interested in(?) the template mentioned at Wikipedia:Random Button. This apparently isn't even a Wikiproject (and rightfully so, as I can't imagine you can make a Wikiproject out of that) and as far as I can see serves no purpose to categorize. At very minimum needs a rename to get rid of "Users" at the start, as per standard naming conventions. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom, rename if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Much too vague; does not seem to be oriented toward collaboration. Wikipedia:Random Button#Userbox states that users should "use this userbox to note that [they] press The Random Button or ... other random buttons". OK, but ... so what? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - This seems almost juvenile and has no place on Wikipedia. Maybe a userbox at most, but not a category of users. Youngwebprogrammer (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, this is another category for userpage template usage. Horologium (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who are Admin Coaches

Category:Wikipedians who are Admin Coaches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Should be renamed to Category:Wikipedian admin coaches (standard naming convention, capitals). VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rename/speedy rename as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Incidentally, which parent category is most suitable for this case: Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status or Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia collaboration (or one of the subcats thereof)? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Devil May Cry

Category:Wikipedians who like Devil May Cry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per lots of precedent at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by video game. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, all video game categories that regard wikipedians who play certian video games, have been deleted. This one should be no exception. Youngwebprogrammer (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians interested in a region

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in a region to Category:Wikipedians by regional interest or similar

Nominator's rationale: A category for Wikipedians interested in an unspecified region is not especially useful, so this category should function as a parent category only. To that end, it should be renamed to a title that more accurately reflects its purpose. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This sorely needs a rename (and possible pruning). It seems that this is supposed to be about Political divisions and Country subdivisions, not geography. (Or perhaps it is both, in which case a "split" for clarity is in order.) "Region" is just too unclear. Suggestions welcome. - jc37 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Rename per nom (and depopulate the single user in the category). I don't particularly have a problem with the broadness of "region", and if that is a problem, we can always add subcategories for "Wikipedians by country interest" or "Wikipedians by geographic interest" and recategorize as appropriate. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• We could rename it to "Wikipedians by country interest", move the categories for ancient civilisations to Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient history, and use the broad regional categories (e.g. Africa, the Caribbean) as parent categories for individual country categories. In that way, it would approximate the category structure of Category:Wikipedians by location. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• At first glance, that sounds like a good idea. Though Category:Wikipedians by interest in countries (or "...in a country") sounds better. - jc37 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think either of the two offered alternatives ("Wikipedians by country interest" or "Wikipedians by interest in a country") would be an improvement over the current name. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, "Wikipedians by interest in a country" does sound better. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Fine with me. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete this and all its subcategories as none of them assist in encyclopedia-building. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop wasting our time. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Trying to get people to write an encyclopedia rather than maintaining useless categories is actually an attempt to get them to stop wasting their time. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• As a user who has used user categories for collaboration, I can safely say you're wrong. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• The discussion has been open for nearly 13 days and has received relatively little comment. Relisting in lieu of a "no consensus" result. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians interested in travel

Category:Wikipedians interested in travel - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This category was originally created as Category:Wikipedians who travel. It was renamed per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 16 in an effort to shift focus toward collaboration, but I believe that the rename may have introduced miscategorisation by placing in this category people who like to travel but have no interest in the subject of traveling (see the category description). In addition, I don't believe that this category is viable even as a genuine interest category, simply because the topic of "travel" is too broad and ambiguous (see Category:Travel). (See also the deletion discussions for the related Category:Wikipedians who visit countries and its child categories.)

• Delete as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, but possibly allow recreation as a parent category if appropriate subcategories pop up (but perhaps such a parent category would be better named Category:Wikipedians by travel interest. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians interested in hexadecimal numbers

Category:Wikipedians interested in hexadecimal numbers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: The collaborative scope of this category, if any, is limited to one or a few articles only. Also, judging from the text of the userbox that populates the category (User:Tilman Piesk/hexadecimal), this seems to be a recreation of Category:Wikipedians who like hexadecimal (CFD discussion).

• Delete as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I think, the collaborative scope of this category is not limited to articles like hexadecimal, binary, web colours, nibble, byte, powers of two and things like that, but also includes logic related topics like bitwise operations, logic gates, truth tables, logical connectives, propositional calculus (the nibbles link them together) and even articles like Fermat numbers and Mersenne numbers. Not to forget BBP-type formulae.
  

I understand, that the base preference categories have been deleted - to know that someone prefers base 12 or 60 is indeed not really helpful, and the only related article seems to be highly composite number. But binary numbers with a power-of-two number of digits (that means: hexadecimal numbers) are a intersection of so many fields, that I concider it helpful, to have a category for Wikipedians interested in this intersection.

(By the way: The intersection (set theory) matches the four digit binary number 0001, and thus the hexadecimal 1. Just an example.)

So please don´t be too radical : ) The existence of this category is not a step back to things like Category:Wikipedians who like ternary or Category:Wikipedians who like hexagesimal. Greetings, Tilman Piesk (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• A category that would support collaboration on all those pages sounds good, but I'm not convinced the current name reflects that very well. Any rename option you can think of that would better convey all those articles as potential collaboration topics? VegaDark (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep until there is a better name. DGG (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

February 28

Category:Chilean-American Wikipedians

Category:Chilean-American Wikipedians - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a redundant category, as both Category:Wikipedians in Chile and Category:American_Wikipedians already cover this. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 06:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Moved from WP:CFD. Procedural relisting at correct forum. Bencherlite^Talk 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Double upmerge to Category:Chilean Wikipedians and Category:American Wikipedians. The scope of the category is too narrow and, more generally, I don't believe it facilitates encyclopedic collaboration. I don't think one can assume that Chilean Americans possess an above-average ability or desire to collaborate on articles about Chilean American people, organisations, culture, and the like. Some likely will, but others will not. In general, I don't think we can judge about editors' interests and abilities solely on the basis of their identities (e.g. I edit articles related mostly to Africa, yet have no personal connection to the contintent). A similar case can be found at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007#Category:Arab Canadian Wikipedians. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Double upmerge per above. VegaDark (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians in the Interior

Category:Wikipedians in the Interior (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"This page is for Wikipedians from Fairbanks, the Tanana Valley, and elsewhere in the Interior region of Alaska." - Needs a rename to clarify what the category is for at minimum. However, this is a single user category, so my first choice would be to upmerge to Category:Wikipedians in Alaska. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Upmerge as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Upmerge per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Upmerge as per nom. Horologium (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Sims

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Sims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

While the Sims probably has enough articles to collaborate on, this category is populated by a lone userbox page with no actual users. Additionally, the userbox text is "This user enjoys playing the Sims", so any users adding the userbox would be miscategorized. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom, without prejudice of recreation. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - miscategorisation: "enjoys playing the Sims" != interested in improving articles related to the Sims. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians interested in wild food

Category:Wikipedians interested in wild food (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wild food has been deleted, so this category can not facilitate collaboration. Single-user category that has existed over a year. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - serves no purpose. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 16:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. No article=no cat. Horologium (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians invited to the LA Meetup

Category:Wikipedians invited to the LA Meetup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single user category despite existing for nearly 3 years, does not help the encyclopedia to categorize those who are invited to particular wiki-meetups. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - even if this category was useful at some point in the past, it is not useful anymore. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and Black Falcon. Horologium (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians interested in Antiquity

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in Antiquity to Category:Wikipedians interested in classical antiquity

Nominator's rationale: Antiquity is a disambiguation page, and the term may refer to classical antiquity or ancient history in general. Judging from the page description and userbox, the category seems to be oriented toward the former meaning. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• UpMerge to Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient history - At best, (and only if renamed per nom) this should be a parent cat divided by the subsections of Classical antiquity. (Category:Wikipedians interested in the Roman empire, for example.) - jc37 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• There are "interest" categories for ancient Carthage, Egypt, Greece, Persia and Rome, but all are currently subcats of Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient history and Category:Wikipedians interested in a region. I suppose it boils down to the question of whether an intermediary layer of categorisation for "classical antiquity" is needed... All in all, I can't say that I oppose upmerging. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Upmerge per Jc37. to Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient history , but keep as a real category for the broadly interested, not just a parent. DGG (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

February 24

Category:User nds-NL-1

Category:User nds-NL

Category:User nds-NL-1

single user cat. It seems that the user has created this cat on several language Wikipedias (with it having been apparently deleted on one of them), though still being a single user cat in those places as well. If no consensus to delete, upmerge -1 to the parent. - jc37 21:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete both as nom. - jc37 21:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both, as useless as all the Babel categories. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• 'comment on previous deletion rationale. My own experience of babel categories is that they are by far the most useful. Just to give an example: a question of notability about an Egyptian TV presenter might better be answered by someone with Arabic who is not on a TV-project, than by anybody particularly involved in TV projects. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - If a Wikipedia doesn't exist and is unlikely to ever exist in a particular language/dialect, IMO we should delete the category for it. VegaDark (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per VegaDark. --Kbdank71 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or up-merge. I'm not sure what the problem here is, nor am I aware of the "needs a local Wiki" requirement. -- Ned Scott 04:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Upmerge to Category:User nds and Category:User nds-1. I think that "regional dialect" categories (see here for past discussions) do not faciliate encyclopedic collaboration. The primary usefulness of the Babel categories lies in their relationship to translation, yet regional dialects generally differ from the main language in terms of speech rather than writing, and it is the latter that is relevant to collaborative translation efforts. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both - Useless categories that are lonely, with only one user each. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 16:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not anything other than a dialect of Dutch, and doesn't need a cat, and especially doesn't need Babelization for a single user. Horologium (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians interested in books as objects

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in books as objects to Category:Wikipedian bibliophiles (See bibliophile)

or

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in books as objects to category:Wikipedians interested in book history (See History of the book)

or

Delete - single member category.

See also comments at Category talk:Wikipedians interested in books as objects - jc37 19:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Unsure as yet, waiting for more discussion. - jc37 19:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, do not help users contribute to writing an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - the two rename proposals would result in single-article categories, which is not helpful for the encyclopedia. Collaboration can occur on the talk pages of bibliophile and History of the book, a category is not necessary for this. VegaDark (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That assumes that everybody who is willing to share their expertise will be going out of their way to contribute to talkpages. -Paularblaster (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep to give it time to grow, I know from the first discussion on the depopulating of Wikipedians interested in books that there may be people out there that are interested in books themselves, not the contents. This could be the a category of people who would improve articles on such things as book binding, book publishing methods, book media, history of books, etc. Since Wikipedians interested in books was depopulated such a short time ago, and this category created in response to that, give it time to grow. I suggest that it be revisited in a few months. - LA @ 08:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  People who would improve articles on book binding, publishing methods, etc., etc., can and should be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books#Participants. There's no need for a category. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 08:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of wikiprojects is that they bring together those interested in systematically contributing to wikipedia in a particular field. I am already a member of two; more would rather overload me. Categories, in contrast, are a way of finding people with expertise in a particular field even if it is not the main area of their activity on wikipedia (at least, that's how I use them). --Paularblaster (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As Paularblaster says, WikiProjects are just one of many ways we collaborate, and a full-on project is not always required. In fact, WP:PROJECT's guidelines even recommend topical collaboration outside of a WikiProject when that's all that is needed. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

But in this case, there is an existing WikiProject. And even collaboration outside WikiProjects doesn't require categories. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing requires anything, but it helps. -- Ned Scott 05:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• creator's comment. I recently created this category, with this name, to replace the now defunct "bibliophile" category which seems to have become an overpopulated catch-all for people interested in books in a variety of senses (also, incidentally, a problem with Wikiproject Books, which is more about literature than it is about books). The category is not intended exclusively for book historians, but also for those interested in book design, layout, bindings, etc. Hence neither "bibliophile" (which people take simply to mean "likes books") nor "book history" seemed entirely appropriate. The purpose is to provide a category for those willing to provide expertise in these areas even if their main contributions to wikipedia fall outside this field. I am myself an academic specializing in 16th and 17th-century print culture, but wikipedia is a hobby: my contributions are in areas that interest me more incidentally (and in any case it would be hard not to fall into OR, on top of which wikipedia is not a form of publication that looks good on an academic CV); nevertheless, I am perfectly happy to make my expertise available for anyone asking for it. This, I would have thought, is the reason for having categories as well as projects. If, in a month's time, nobody else has added themselves to the category then I would certainly be in favour of deletion. I should say, as the creator of this category, it would have been nice to receive notification of this discussion rather than stumble upon it - but CfD and AfD seem to have rather different etiquette. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per my above comment. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

February 22

Category:Wikipedians interested in radio

Category:Wikipedians interested in radio - Template:Lc1

Note: This is a group nomination of Category:Wikipedians interested in radio and its subcategories. Detailed nomination rationales for the subcategories are offered below.

Nominator's rationale: This category is too vague to be useful for encyclopedic collaboration – indeed, it is too vague to be useful as anything other than a parent category. "Radio" can refer to the "medium of wireless communication" in general, specific radio technologies, the activity of radio broadcasting, specific radio broadcasts, radio frequencies, the electronic device, and a host of other things. Since there is no reason to expect that an interest in one implies an interest the others, the category effectively fails to tell us anything specific about the users it contains.

• If all subcategories are deleted, then delete; if all subcategories are not deleted, then depopulate of user pages. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support the above. - jc37 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose and let people choose how specific they wish to be. DGG (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Depopulate, keep as a parent category if any of the subcategories remain. If not, delete as empty, but allow recreation as a parent category if suitable subcategories are ever created (currently I would support deleting all subcategories, but I could support keeping some subcategories if they had an "interested in" naming convention). VegaDark (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete parent category and all subcategories. None of them helps users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Are you new here? That's obviously not true. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've been here about a year longer than you have, and it obviously is true. User categories do nothing to assist encyclopedia-building. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Then you're just blind. This isn't something "in theory", it's something that actually happens on a daily bases. I've contacted other editors via such categories, and I've been contacted via similar categories. Facts would suggest that your generalization that all user cats are useless is wrong. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the personal attack. Arguing with people is so much easier when they undermine themselves. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Angr. I'm interested in lots of things, watch many tv shows and listen to different radio shows, none of which I have an interest in writing about. --Kbdank71 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep either as a parent category, or as a non-detailed interest category per DGG. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians by radio series

Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Goon Show - (The Goon Show)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to the Navy Lark - (The Navy Lark)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Round the Horne - (Round the Horne)

Nominator's rationale: Same as for "Wikipedians by radio talk shows".

• Delete all as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - If we keep TV series, then we should keep these. Same reasons, same rationales. We shouldn't discriminate by media type. - jc37 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - While I agree with jc37 that it might create a double standard to delete these but keep the TV series categories, I fully support deleting (or renaming) all the tv series categories, so I have no proplem with dealing with these first. Additionally the TV categories will have articles on individual episodes to collaborate on, which the radio shows will not have, so I'm not even entirely convinced that if we have those we should keep these. VegaDark (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

February 21

Category:Wikipedians who liked The Waltons

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians who liked The Waltons to Category:Wikipedians who like The Waltons liked > like. - jc37 02:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• While I support the rename if the category is to remain, this is a single-user category whose scope is limited to two articles (The Waltons and List of The Waltons episodes) and thus could be deleted. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Would you be willing to modify your comment to "Delete, without prejudice for recreation, should there be more collaborative material on the topic, or more Wikipedian interest in the catgeory"? - jc37 00:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm perfectly OK with that. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per above (the same logic could probably be used for many other tv show categories), rename per nom if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Trivial category. Seicer (t | c) 16:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Television series aren't limited to just the show and its episodes (or character pages/lists). And being a series, means that there is more possible contribution material, than one may find for a stand alone show (or a "talk show" for that matter). Someone interested in the show may also be interested in contributing on the actors' articles. (Such as Richard Thomas.) Also, there is the potential for expansion per other TV series articles. (One person's "cruft" is another person's article. The debate continues on...) Just looking over the main article, I see several places for exansion (the later movies, or the new series, for example). - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians on Erasmus

Category:Wikipedians on Erasmus - See ERASMUS programme:

• "The aim of the ERASMUS Programme is to encourage and support academic mobility of higher education students and teachers within the European Union, the European Economic Area countries of Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway as well as candidate countries such as Turkey."
• "The ERASMUS Programme, together with a number of other independent programmes, was incorporated into the Socrates programme when that programme was established in 1995. The Socrates programme ended on 31 December 1999 and was replaced with the Socrates II programme on 24 January 2000. That, in turn, was replaced by the Lifelong Learning Programme 2007–2013 as from 1 January 2007."

So essentially, this single-article cat was an "all-inclusive" cat for any student of "higher learning" from the European Union.

However, it's also now a defunct programme, that's been subsumed by several others. - jc37 01:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 01:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, Erasmus is still the name used for it - its brand as it were - and it is know by that name. It is not about higher learning in general, it is an exchange programme. And further more it is not a normal exchange programme given its design to make it much easier, provide large support grants for students and its cultural impact (the film L'Auberge espagnole, the culture surrounding the programme such as "erasmus parties" and its use usage (compulsory for some courses) across the continent. I'm afraid jc37 has misunderstood the nature of the programme.- J Logan ^t: 11:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  Even with that explanation, I'm still looking for how this helps contribution, rather than just interest in a single article (or possibly 2). It seems to me that a userpage notice should be enough. - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh like any of them help contribution, what about Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Groep T or Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Colorado College? Not really the point behind them.- J Logan ^t: 12:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. As for Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Groep T and Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Colorado College, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason to keep. They should be deleted too. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, so long as there are no double standards, getting rather tired of them.- J Logan ^t: 18:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like trigonometry

• Rename Category:Wikipedians who like trigonometry to Category:Wikipedians interested in trigonometry - jc37 00:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rename - as nom. - jc37 00:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. After considering the userbox and the subject, I think this is one of the rare cases where "who like" can be renamed to "interested in" without any substantial risk of miscategorisation. By the way, I think there is a similarly-named category for geometry... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Rename per nom, and consider tagging and adding to this nomination both Category:Wikipedians who like geometry and Category:Wikipedians who like algebra. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  Fine with me. If so, this should be relisted to that date. Else feel free to nom those two in a separate nom. - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Are you even playing attention? -- Ned Scott 04:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I am. I know this category was brought here for a name change, but I'd rather just have it deleted. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians in the Faroe Islands

Category:Wikipedians in the Faroe Islands - single Wikipedian cat. - jc37 00:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. - jc37 00:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• I think this category could be useful for obtaining images of places or people in the Faroe Islands, but the single user in the category has not edited in about 4 months (see here)... If deleted, I think it should be without prejudice to recreation. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice to recreation - Only one user and less than 50,000 population, which has been the standard to delete so far. Perhaps isolated locations like islands should be exempt from this standard, though? If that is determined, then allow recreation if more than one user is in the category within 5 days of recreation. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The category could potentially foster collaboration, although it has only one user now. But deleting the category wouldn't achieve anything useful. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Black Falcon. However, a word of caution is required here. People in the Faroe Islands generally do not want to be categorized as Danes for historical and political reasons that we should respect so no prejudice to recreation if more active Faroese Wikipedians want a category. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreation, per above. - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and promote population. The only way people will be added is if they know the category exists. Deleting does not make sense with that in mind. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians in Espoo

Category:Wikipedians in Espoo - single Wikipedian cat. - jc37 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. - jc37 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• While this is a single-user cat, Espoo is the second-largest city in Finland and so perhaps merits a distinct category. However, since the sole user in the category is inactive (see contributions history) ... weak delete without prejudice to recreation. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as single user category, but without prejudice to recreation if it gets more than one user in the category within 5 days of recreation. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per Black Falcon. Horologium (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreation, per above. - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: Only one user uses the category, so it is kind of 'lonely'. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 18:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and promote population. The only way people will be added is if they know the category exists. Deleting does not make sense with that in mind. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

February 20

Wikipedians by radio station/network

• Category:Wikipedians who listen to BBC Radio 4
• Category:Wikipedians who listen to NPR
• Category:Wikipedians who listen to Sirius Satellite Radio
• Category:Wikipedians who listen to Air America Radio
• Category:Wikipedians who listen to ESPN Radio - single-user category

These types of categories do not foster encyclopedic collaboration, since merely listening to a radio station does not imply possession of an above-average desire or ability to contribute encyclopedic content about it. (These categories could even include people who casually listen to the radio while driving or jogging.) See related precedents here, here and here.

• Delete all as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. - jc37 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. These cats, unlike previous cats I have voted to delete, are nationwide stations or networks, rather than single-market stations, and there are related categories (programs, personalities) associated with them. For example, it is likely that someone who listens to NPR can contribute to National Public Radio and at least one of the many programs on that network, such as All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Marketplace, Car Talk (which is a single-member subcat), or the multitude of other programs. The same could be said of Air America Radio or BBC Radio 4; AAR, in particular, is likely to have listeners who listen to more than one program on the network. The ESPN category contains two daughter categories (for specific programs), with more than a single user in each (each contains a discrete list, with some overlap), which is a valid use of sub-categorization. Sirius is a bit different; there is little to no relationship between the various channels offered by Sirius other than their medium of transmission. I suspect that most of the editors in this category listen to only one channel or program on Sirius (Howard Stern), which limits the utility of the category for collaboration, as they are interested only in Stern, not in Sirius or any of its other offerings. Horologium (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  I don't know. I think that that's a hard sell. If I were to "tune in", and listen to a single show, once a week, that technically makes me a listener of the station, even though I'm only interested in the single show. And what really makes this not work is syndication. If I only listen to Dr. Demento (interesting that the show is merged to the person's article), to what should I attribute my interest in the show? Westwood One? The individual station? No. Seems to vague, and too broad to be useful. - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My experience with listeners of NPR and Air America (I have friends who listen to each, to my consternation) is that they are very committed to their networks, and tend to listen to multiple programs on whichever network they favor. I don't want to mis-characterize their audiences, but they tend to be a bit more enthusiastic than listeners to Dr. Demento or other syndicated radio programs. Much as many fans of Rush Limbaugh or Coast to Coast AM are not just casual listeners, AAR attracts a fairly hardcore crowd, and they tend to be fairly knowledgeable about the network and its personalities. This interest in multiple shows under the network banner is what makes the categories possibly useful, unlike Dr. Demento, which is a single show syndicated to a small ad hoc collection of stations, rather than through a full-fledged national network. The same holds true for almost all of the other talkers, whose shows are syndicated individually; the networks offer entire integrated packages of shows. Horologium (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking also of their television counterparts, such as NBC. Just because I may watch The West Wing, doesn't mean I'm knowledgeable about NBC, or (more importantly) interested whatsoever in collaborating/contributing to the NBC article or any of its related articles, save those which have to do with The West Wing. I see the same problem with the radio networks above. Do you disagree? - jc37 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

TV networks are a bit different, as most people watch shows from multiple networks. My interest in Top Chef does not translate to an interest in Bravo, or to NBC Universal, its parent. However, as I noted above, NPR and AAR have devoted followings. I have a good friend who seldom listens to any radio station other than NPR unless he is with friends who don't care for it; another friend didn't listen to the radio at all until an AAR affiliate sprang up near him, and it is the only station to which he listens. The networks grouped above have a more clearly defined focus than, say, Wikipedians who listen to Clear Channel stations or Wikipedians who watch CBS programs, which are somewhat arbitrary groupings, because their only connection is based on ownership (who owns the transmitters), while there tends to be a cohesive, thematic grouping for PBS and AAR. (I am leaving the others out because I have little experience of knowledge of them; I have never had access to BBC4, and don't know much about ESPN. I've already addressed Sirius, which I can support deleting, as it is a grouping similar to the Clear Channel and CBS examples I provided above.) They are not single show groupings (such as the Limbaugh example I noted earlier (which has since been nominated for deletion), so there is a possibility of collaboration that doesn't exist with single-show categories. I am not strongly wedded to my argument, though, and I won't grieve if consensus runs against me here. Horologium (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)